On Topic

writes:

Why did they stop making cars with tail fins?

Because there was no longer a market for them.

Nose gear airplanes became the fashion for GA, with a small number of
tail dragger enthusiasts.

It has been a very durable "fashion," rather like disc brakes and fuel
injection.

Tail draggers are making a resurgance because of the nostalgia, they tend
to be cheaper to make (and thus sell), and there are situations where a
nose wheel is not really desirable to have.

So it's a niche market. Meaning that, unless a prospective pilot specifically
wants to fly tail draggers for some reason, there's no reason to include them
in a training program.

Financial limitations are always a factor in everything in real life.

It's possible to spend a lot more on something that will eventually provide a
payback than on something that won't.

Do you think the Air Force is going to do primary training in anything other
than cheap (by comparison) primary trainers?

I don't know how the Air Force sets its priorities. I don't think money is
always a key factor.

Nope, because such pilots wouldn't be allowed to fly out of the third world
and real simulators that accurately simulate actual flight cost more than
primary trainers.

Real simulators for large airliners are cheaper than the airliners themselves.
And regulations differ and can change. For example, the ICAO requires Level 4
proficiency in English, but it allows individual member states to measure that
proficiency in their own way, which means that many people who still can't
speak English well enough to be safe manage to join air crews.

Yeah, computers were invented making it possible to build a simulator.

Simulators substantially predate computers.

And, FYI, the FAA has been talking about increasing the flight time
requirements for pilots flying paying customers, not decreasing them or
using simulation.

Experience is always an asset. But you don't necessarily need a real airplane
to get experience. And in a real airplane, you're more likely to get one
year's experience ten times than ten years of varied experience, because
real-world flying tends to be fairly monotonous if it's safe, whereas
simulation can provide experience in all sorts of situations that would be too
dangerous to experience in real life (which is one of the main reasons for
using it).

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:



Financial limitations are always a factor in everything in real life.

It's possible to spend a lot more on something that will eventually provide a
payback than on something that won't.

And it is quite possible you are insane.

Do you think the Air Force is going to do primary training in anything other
than cheap (by comparison) primary trainers?

I don't know how the Air Force sets its priorities. I don't think money is
always a key factor.

"I don't know how" being the operative part.

Do you think the Air Force is going to do primary training in anything other
than cheap (by comparison) primary trainers?

Nope, because such pilots wouldn't be allowed to fly out of the third world
and real simulators that accurately simulate actual flight cost more than
primary trainers.

Real simulators for large airliners are cheaper than the airliners themselves.

But not cheaper than much of anything less than an airliner, which is the
point.

Yeah, computers were invented making it possible to build a simulator.

Simulators substantially predate computers.

Not simulators that actually simulate reality.

And, FYI, the FAA has been talking about increasing the flight time
requirements for pilots flying paying customers, not decreasing them or
using simulation.

Experience is always an asset.

Good to see that you are not totally insane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On May 10, 3:06 pm, "birdog" wrote:
Is it possible to get a pilot topic going here? For all the criticism of
this guy Max--, the simulation pilot here, at least his posts relate to
aviation, however synthetic. How about we try this, just maybe to get some
on topic comments.

Today, maybe tail-draggers have no legitimate redeeming value, except for
bush piloting, since virtually everyone flies from tarmac to tarmac. But
still, lack of the skill eliminates some planes from the pilots options.
The
Citabra, the 170's, 180's, or the smell of dope and gas in an old Champ.
The
principal difficulty is in a tricycle, once all three wheels are down
solid,
you are done except steering it down the runway. In a tail dragger, relax
and it will swap ends, with devistating results.

In my formative years, I flew safety valve for any number of licensed
pilots
trying to transition from try- to tail draggers. A few picked it up with a
dozen or so landings, and a very few never got the hang. Most took about
3-6
hours to gain competence. To go from tail dragger to tri-gear normally
took
about two landings. Compare this to 7-9 hours of dual for the beginning
pilot in eithor type. To me, the hardest thing to master before soloing
was
the rudder work required to land a tail dragger.

Does this suggest that training should begin in a tail dragger? Would it
be
worth the extra effort? Or is the entire topic outdated?

I saw one like this yesterday parked out back,
except it was blue and white, real sharp.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Van's-RV-6/1577100/M/

---
Mark

Beautiful little plane. Looks a lot like a 300. It is stressed for
aerobatics? Almost looks like it's doing aeros, setting on the runway!

Have no experience, but kind of curious too.

I was under the impression that things that come into play for
conventional gear is gyroscopic motion on the propeller when the tail
comes up or drops on take off and landing, as well as the fact that
since the cg is behind the main gear there is a tenancy for the
airplane to want to ground loop if you don't keep that cg behind them
fairly well with control inputs.

I would think that both floats and skis would not have that same
issue, both due to not having as much pitch up and down on take off
and landings, and due to their cg being over the floats or skis.

But then again I have no idea what I am talking about. Just guessing
and would like someone who actually knows what they are talking about
to chime in heh.

Mike

On May 10, 3:56*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
"birdog" wrote:
Today, maybe tail-draggers have no legitimate redeeming value, except
for bush piloting, since virtually everyone flies from tarmac to
tarmac.

Perhaps one other possible redeeming value might be in emergency landings
on unknown surfaces. I've read accident reports where there were fatalities
when the nose wheel of a plane dug in and the plane flipped.

I'm also curious to know if anyone can give first-hand information on
whether landing on skis or floats is more like landing on conventional gear
or tricycle gear? For several reasons I've assumed that it is more like
landing on tricycle gear, but maybe that is incorrect.

"birdog" wrote in message
...
Is it possible to get a pilot topic going here? For all the criticism of
this guy Max--, the simulation pilot here, at least his posts relate to
aviation, however synthetic. How about we try this, just maybe to get some
on topic comments.

Today, maybe tail-draggers have no legitimate redeeming value, except for
bush piloting, since virtually everyone flies from tarmac to tarmac. But
still, lack of the skill eliminates some planes from the pilots options.
The Citabra, the 170's, 180's, or the smell of dope and gas in an old
Champ. The principal difficulty is in a tricycle, once all three wheels
are down solid, you are done except steering it down the runway. In a tail
dragger, relax and it will swap ends, with devistating results.

In my formative years, I flew safety valve for any number of licensed
pilots trying to transition from try- to tail draggers. A few picked it up
with a dozen or so landings, and a very few never got the hang. Most took
about 3-6 hours to gain competence. To go from tail dragger to tri-gear
normally took about two landings. Compare this to 7-9 hours of dual for
the beginning pilot in eithor type. To me, the hardest thing to master
before soloing was the rudder work required to land a tail dragger.

Does this suggest that training should begin in a tail dragger? Would it
be worth the extra effort? Or is the entire topic outdated?

Yes, it is probably well worth the effort.

With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer tri-gear
designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has certainly
reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel; but it has done so at the
cost of controllability in the event of a partial brake failure and also
created some brake wear and heating problems taxiing in crosswinds.

Against that back drop, even though I expect to have a lot of trouble
learning to love the high nose position, a steerable tail wheel has a very
strong argument. I would expect the frequency of ground loops due to pilot
error in taildraggers to be no greater than the frequency due to braking
problems in tri-gears; and the improvement in propeller clearance, when
strarting from rest on the occasional loose surfaces, should offest the
annoyance s-turns due to reduced visibility. All in all, the comparison
could be a wash; but is certainly worthy of more discussion than it has
received.

Peter

writes:

Not simulators that actually simulate reality.

Reality-targeted flight simulators predate electronic computers.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Not simulators that actually simulate reality.

Reality-targeted flight simulators predate electronic computers.

The operative word being "targeted".

The first flight simulators that were anything near realistic had analog
computers running them, but the view was nowhere near realistic.

It wasn't until digital computers that it became possible to have a
realistic view.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...

Not simulators that actually simulate reality.

I've been in multi million dollar six degree of freedom simulators, but
I've never been in one that comes close to simulating reality.

They can only translate about a dozen feet from end to end - the resulting
motion is just not right. Plus they can't come close to simulating the
things that really mess up your inner ears during sustained turns.

Ever heard of anyone suffering GLOC in a 6dof simultor?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has
certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;

Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do even
more...

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk @See My Sig.com wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...
With the quest for efficiency, in recent years, most of the newer
tri-gear designs have featured free castering nose wheels. That has
certainly reduced the aerodynamic drag of the nose wheel;

Moving it to the back and reducing the size by a factor of 4 would do
even more...

Vans RV-6, 7, 8, and 9 experimentals can be built with tricycle gear and
conventional gear.

Without cheating and looking at the advertised performance difference
between the two gear choices at identical power settings, what would either
of you guess the percentage difference in speed might be?